Talk:Timeline of the far future

Fully Linear?
I've noticed that this timeline is split into multiple timelines based on subject. The exact order of events, therefore, is screwed up. Because there are symbols indicating subject already, I would recommend a single timeline, and perhaps, simply dating events by the year they happen. (The year 1,000,000,000, for example, is normally considered 1,000,000,000 years from now, so most dates will only have a "c." put at the left of them) I'm suggesting this because, if I did it myself, it would be reverted because I'm an IP. 24.59.254.203 (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * You wouldn't necessarily be reverted because you're an IP but because this change would be considered controversial, so thanks for bringing it up on the talk page first. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was a good idea. 24.59.254.203 (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I wouldn't see it anyway, due to Pending-protection-shackle.svgng Changes Protection. 24.59.254.203 (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you were logged in with an account there's a preference that allows you to see the most recent edit to a page regardless of it having pending changes. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The list is chronological (it is definitely not linear). It's just that topics tend to cluster as they become more relevant: you can't have biology when there is no life; you can't have geology when there is no Earth, and you can't have astronomy when there are no stars.  Serendi pod ous  20:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * And history when there are no humans. But the fact is, some events appear below later events. I'm just saying we should try and fix this.
 * 24.59.254.203 (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't see any. Serendi pod ous  21:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The humanity list goes from 10,000 to 1,000,000,000, and is followed by the space list which goes from 3000 to 100,000,000,000,000,000.
 * 24.59.254.203 (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. They're different lists. I suppose this page would be better named "Timelines of the far future" if that bothers you so much.  Serendi pod ous  23:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC) I can see most of the smaller lists (the half lives of useful radioactive elements probably not) merged but what would uou call such a list?  Serendi pod ous  10:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I vaguely remember this list having been fully linear in the past. I have no clue whether or not that would be an improvement. I can say that some of the categories feel very arbitrary right now. In particular "Technological projects" and "Human constructs" (both contain lifespans of things humans made), and the larger "Humanity." If we were to have a split with human-centered lists, perhaps the only logical split would be between "things that will almost certainly happen" vs "long projects humans might do"; that distinction in certainty is more meaningful than the distinctions we have in there right now. I will note that both the first long list and the humanity lists have a bunch of "thing is eroded away completely" on it. Recovery of the coral reef should maybe even be under "humanity" too? The longer I look at what is categorized where, the weirder it gets. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * On a larger point, one advantage of just putting everything in one big list, is that you get a better sense of the scale of different subjects. I like getting a feel for where humanity's longest impacts fit within Big History, and would argue this is one of the most interesting aspects of this list. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it all falls under "the Earth, the Solar System, and the Universe"! – But it can be reasonable to keep human-related and non-human-related lists split. The destinction between the two just gets really unclear. Alternatively, if you want a split list, you could split it between more certain and less certain events. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How can you distinguish between more or less certain? And no I do not think that combining the human world with the natural one makes sense. It would be like incorporating the timeline of McDonalds into the timeline of the evolution of the cow.  Serendi pod ous  16:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * With "less certain", I specifically intended to refer to human plans for the far future. Completion of long-term construction projects, opening of time capsules, etc. You're right, though, those lines do get too blurry: "Time required to terraform Mars with an oxygen-rich breathable atmosphere" and "Estimated time by which humanity could colonize our Milky Way" are more math/physics things. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I often have trouble locating the events about the erosion of Giza and Mt. Rushmore, because they're not lumped with similar geological events for natural features. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 08:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, I've revised it.  Serendi pod ous  14:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I like this change; I think it looks very good :) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Me too. I am also the IP that first suggested this. (I moved to a new location, and thus, a new address.) 24.59.115.147 (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It appears I'm not the only one who questions the necessity for splitting entries into categories. I've recently created a test page to give an idea of how I think the contents could be formatted. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Trying an experiment
Been wondering how to break this list up for a while. I'm a little wary of this because I had to invent the term "solar era" to prevent the list from becoming lopsided. Let me know what you think.  Serendi pod ous  18:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * "Solar Era" is really the same as "Stelliferous Era" (which we're currently in). If it really needs to be broken up I would just make it "Stelliferous Era (<10 billion years from now)" and "Stelliferous Era (>10 billion years from now)". –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 18:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

probabilistic events

 * This represents the time by which the event will most probably have happened. It may occur randomly at any time from the present.

Define "most probably". The most meaningful figure, I think, would be the present half-life. —Tamfang (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

redirect-several template
can someone add List of numbers together with "For other uses, see[...]"? several numbers redirect here. I would add myself but I can't understand how exactly. Xdtp (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if that would really fit there. The other links are also articles about timelines or eras. Can you imagine a scenario when somebody would search for a number, get redirected here, and instead want to go to List of numbers? –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 18:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's because some numbers don't have an article for themselves (i.e. 7000 and 7,000 have, but 7,777 or 7777). List of numbers is just as useful as list of years. Xdtp (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To be honest I think those redirects should be deleted, because I can't see anybody typing that number and wanting to be redirected here. And then clicking a link to go to List of numbers or List of years instead. But if you really want to add it, in visual editing mode click on the hatnote, then click the edit button on the template popup. Check the first number checkbox not already checked on the side, and then enter the link you want added (without square brackets). In source editing mode, you just add the link you want added (again, without square brackets) after a vertical pipe (|). –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 18:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There are also several random number redirects here: 5670; 3646; 3647; 3648; 3003; 3004; 3007; 3009; 3467; 8001; 7546; 5964; 7603; 6009; 3650; 8009; 3101; 3201; 3401; 3501; 3601; 3901; 3113; 3114; 3115; 3116; 3117; 3013; 3014; 3118; 3121 (year); 3122; 3123; 3124; 3127; 3126; 3128; 3161; 3162; 3163; 3164; 3165; 3166; 3167; 3168; 3169; 3171; 3172; 3173; 3174; 3175; 3176; 3177; 3178; 3179; 3181; 3182; 3184; 3185; 3186. The reason I posted it here is that I wanted to edit this template: . Please see the source code, it's complicated, to add a comma and link to list of numbers Xdtp (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Change the template code to which generates
 * –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 19:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. It worked. Xdtp (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

This Article is an Information Hazard
Understanding of this article's contents and their implications can directly harm the reader. In Bostrom's categorization, it is an attention hazard, meaning that while all information is public, amalgamating and drawing attention to it can present a hazard. Personally, understanding of this subject, largely from this article, has resulted in years of debilitating depression, complete destruction of my ethical system, and required multiple major philosophical shifts over years to even start to overcome. (I have a Ph.D. in particle physics; the amalgamation in this article is the most severe and potent presentation I know of.) If the reasons for this hazard are not clear to you, and you don't mind risking your own sanity, please direct message me about it rather than posting publicly. In any case, this article should not be promoted, featured, or otherwise have attention drawn to it. Pulu (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have any guidelines on how to treat infohazards. It wasn't a big aspect of the Roko's basilisk conversation either, and I don't think we have any guidelines on seizure-inducing imagery. I would be interested to read up on such thing. I think it all just falls under WP:NOTCENSORED. Either way, as someone who learned about the heat death of the universe around age 10, this isn't the most traumatic infohazard on the website. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I used to provide a link to a copy of The Last Question to assuage such existential vertigo, but it got deleted because of copyright.  Serendi pod ous  20:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Serendipodous it does not scare me, these things are just theories, you know 92.24.83.192 (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Pulu there are no policies or guidelines on infohazard 92.24.83.192 (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I had to read the article for info hazards and I didn't see any. Your reaction is your own. I hope you got the support you needed. Personally the information here wouldn't change my ethical system or outlook on the world. If your ethical system is predicated on humans or the Earth existing literally forever, then you probably _should_ rethink it. Nothing lasts forever. Curiouskiwicat (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This comment and any future actions taken to censor whatever infohazard is in this article will lead to a Streisand effect. If whatever's in here is truly that dangerous, it should probably remain untouched. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 15:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Black dwarfs exploding into supernovae
https://newatlas.com/space/black-dwarf-supernovae-last-event-universe/

That is by theoretical physicist Matt Caplan. A event on universe black dwarf supernovæ 217.76.11.109 (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Already listed.  Serendi pod ous  21:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And where is listed? 217.76.12.34 (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * At 101100–32000 years. –LaundryPizza<b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 03:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Could we add in lifespans on Exoplanets/Exosolar systems?
I think the lifespan of Exoplanets such as the ones around the TRAPPIST-1 and 51 Pegasi system could help visualize how long other star systems will last in comparison to ours, and let us know how long future humans would last there. IowaBird (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Possible merge
There seems to be a lot of overlap between this article and Future of an expanding universe. Do we need both? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)